I am aware that Michael Voris is not to everybody’s taste, but I have just enjoyed an hour being educated, and ‘brought up to speed’ on the current state of the Catholic Church by watching one of his recent videos.

In case it hasn’t already been made obvious, I am somebody who has been rediscovering his Catholic Faith over the last 20 years. Most of that time, I have been heading to ‘Rome Alone’, and only recently fell amongst the good company of this blog’s staff. In the last three years or so, I have spent most of my free time exploring all angles of Catholicity on the web, via blogs and suchlike. A scattergun approach, perhaps, but by trial and error, I have begun to develop a nose for good and bad counsel, wisdom and folly. Happily, I can report that I have grown closer to the teachings of the Pope, and further from his enemies. With these informal credentials, I re-introduce myself, and ask any readers who are in the same boat as me, to sit back for an hour, and watch Burrito’s choice:

40 Responses to Rebellion

He has just watched the CIA movie, REBELLION! It seems, to him, to put the CP&S position in a nutshell. Whether or not a nutshell is a suitable place for CP&S to be, is not for him to say.

Voltaire gets a very good press, as do all the ‘Godless’ philosophers. In fact, the gorgeous Mr. Voris (get that carefully tousled hair! Do we think anyone has ever remarked to him on his resemblance to Robert Redford? Surely not!) paints a very plausible picture of humanism and reason in general, while deploring them, in Toad’s opinion.

All the experts on biblical history are ‘so called,’ by Voris. Evolution is a ‘theory’ (which, of course, it is – like gravity or quantum or string. Voris carefully does not state that Darwin was wrong.) One can fairly hear the ‘quote marks’.

What Voris does not do, naturally, is paint a picture of what the world, and life, would be like if the Reformation and the Enlightenment had never happened, and the Catholic Church and Kings and Popes and aristocrats still despotically ruled the world.

Toad thinks it would be like Franco’s Spain, at best.
What it might be like at worst, is too horrible for him (Toad, that is, not Franco) to contemplate.

Anyway, Toad urges all to watch the programme. It is very slick, and well done.

In my opinion Toad, you are way, way off track! Now I know I’m in for a few well aimed spittles coming from you in my direction by disagreeing (that I may not be able to respond to, as for the next few days I’m going to be pretty busy) but I cannot let you get away with the above ;-) .

“By their fruits thou shalt know them.”

And what are the fruits of Modernism? Modernism has spread evil, unrest and atheism throughout the world. It is indeed the old “non serviam”, the “I know best” original sin of pride. It abhors any form of authority, or DOGMA, TRADITION, TRUTH, as being old-fashioned, or an affront to man’s puffed up self-importance. Look at how many have left their Faith since Modernism got a grip on so many members of the Church! Can that be good? Are these “modernists” happy now that they live in an agnostic type of limbo? I don’t think so.

On the other hand I am always amazed at the thriving, joyous numbers in true Catholic parishes that do not hold with Modernism. In liberal parishes there are usually no more than just a few old ladies dotted around the empty pews, valiantly “shuffling chairs on the Titanic”, so to speak – the young are not interested. On my annual pilgrimage to Notre Dame de Chartres (a Traditional Catholic pilgrimage) I can tell you, there are literally thousands of young people, with an equal proportion of men and women, all fired up with enthusiasm for a Faith that challenges them, a Faith that brings meaning to their search for God.

Likewise when a few years ago I visited the Opus Dei centre in Torreciudad with a group of friends, although I am not a member of Opus Dei myself, I was taken aback by the long lines waiting for Confession, the families with large numbers of lovely children, the high percentage of men mostly in their prime, and the fervency and sense of being in the presence of God throughout the beautiful Holy Mass. On top of all that, there was such kindness, courtesy and joy among all the crowds. (Opus Dei, as you know, is loyal to Catholic teachings and does not hold with Modernism!)

I am not pessimistic about the future. The Church will ride the high waves rocking Her and come out into calmer waters one day. The future is in the young faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium.

As a subscriber to RealCatholicTv, I’ve become used to Voris’ style (and hairstyle, Toad ;-) ) His message is sound, his delivery strong and unambiguous. The rest is unimportant. I agree, Burrito, it’s well worth putting aside an hour for “Rebellion”.

(Modernism) abhors any form of authority, or DOGMA, TRADITION, TRUTH, as being old-fashioned, or an affront to man’s puffed up self-importance.

Says Kathleen.

Well, Modernism aside, plenty of other religions claim DOGMA, TRADITION and TRUTH, just different ones from Catholicism, however we all know that, so we will let that go and move right along.

To clarify Toad’s position a bit, although the Enlightenment and the reformation may well have been the cause of a lot of grief – Toad suspects that, had these events NOT taken place, life might be a whole lot worse for everybody, including today’s run-of the-mill Catholics.
Of course, like evolution, that is only a theory on his part.

And he also suspects that man had the most “puffed-up self importance” man has ever had when he lived on a flat earth under Heaven and above Hell at the very centre of the finite universe, which was created solely for man’s benefit.

And Toad suspects that without the Reformation and the Enlightenment and indeed the Renaissance, (each one the Modernism of its day) that’s exactly where we peasants would all still be, still being bullied and murdered by Kings and popes. Whereas, now we are all free to bully and murder one another. Progress! Democracy!

And the idea, that if there is a God, He would be take the slightest interest in the likes of us, strikes me as being the personification of puffed-up self importance.

Toad, Scripture tells us that we have been created in the image and likeness of God, and that His Son, Jesus (God incarnate), suffered and died for us, so that we could all share in His divinity and spend eternity with Him in His heavenly kingdom. ‘Slightest interest’ in us? More like like truly, madly, deeply in love with us, His creatures! It’s a humbling thought, rather than cause for ‘puffed-up self importance’.

A small quibble with Voris, and I accept that he was covering 500 years at a rate of knots.

He does leave the impression that 500 years ago was a halcyon time. Which we know it was not. Rebellion took a different form then, but rebellion there was and has always been. The history of the Church (like the history of Israel) is the history of people scattering off after one golden calf after another, often led by their priests and bishops – and even their popes; and of God leading them back, often with saints; even more often with external trials brought on them by their misbehaviour.

The Council of Trent was a response not just to the “Reformation” but also to the abuses that led to the Reformation. These included liturgical abuses, abuses of power, financial abuses. The papacy was just another State, with a ruler who obeyed whoever had his ear, or the most soldiers, or both. Henry VIII might have got his annulment – as others had in the same circumstances – if his queen’s nephew had not parked an army outside of Rome!

The monarchs of Europe had usually been Christians of convenience, and it made no difference to them what flavour. The Reformation would never have succeeded if it had just been a matter of priests and bishops – but the monarchs of Europe saw it as a chance to hold spiritual as well as temporal power, and converted their entire kingdoms – by fiat and by force.

A return to that kind of power in the hands of a monarch? No thanks.

And that isn’t even to begin to mention slave ownership, the use of torture and the promotion of war by the Church. And the narrowing of minds that followed the flowering of the Renaissance. If we have to return to a past age, give me late Saxon England under Alfred the Great (in the late period of his reign after he’d sussed the defence against the Vikings), when an unaccompanied woman could walk across the kingdom unmolested (try that today – no, don’t try that today), and the abbeys were recovering as places of learning and culture.

.Joyful makes the very points Toad would have, if he were smart and learned enough. Must take a look at her blog.
Yes, things are horrible now, but a mere 500 years ago they were a great deal worse.

Mmve says that God is madly, deeply, in love with us. Toad could say, “Tell that to the Haitians, ” but will not. Instead he wonders how a perfect being can desire anything. Granting that desire is an integral part of all love. But then, God is ‘infinitely incomprehensible.’ Wonderful phrase.

No Toad, I didn’t say things are horrible now, but were worse 500 years ago. I said they were horrible now, and horrible in a different way 500 years ago. Worse then? Tell that to the victims of Pol Pot, or Stalin.

I think you have, perhaps understandably, rather hung your argument on a cliché: life in pre-reformation times was certainly no bed of roses (I, for one, am thoroughly glad that I live here and now), but equally our image of those times as being one of poverty and oppression is a residue of Whig historians’ desire to paint history as a glorious progression to a shining future; the Middle Ages were a period of comparative prosperity in much of Europe (plagues and wars aside) and the social strata were, in some respects, far more permeable than they are today.

I think that you also ignore another aspect of this: Franquism and other forms of Fascism are, like their equally evil twin Communism, thorough-going products of the Enlightenment, evidenced by their faith in the State and “rational” state-planning to build their versions of utopia.

I suppose that, at this point, I should also point out that the form of Catholicism that CP&S embodies has also been formed and shaped by the Reformation and the Enlightenment and that the form of “Catholic Monarchy” espoused by Voris (I’m afraid that I am unable to maintain my suspension of disbelief when I look at his hair, which has a deleterious effect on my ability to take anything he says particularly seriously) is also a recent innovation.

I don’t think we can really say what the world would have looked like had we skipped the Enlightenment and Reformation (we can, perhaps, get a glimpse of the externals of worship by looking at Orthodox services, but their theology was largely reinvented by Hegellians in the nineteenth century), but the sort of regime espoused by Franco can only be seen as an aberration that was fathered by the eighteenth century, not the sixteenth.

Says Joyful. I am confident that she is not implying that I espouse either of these bad men, both enemies of tolerance, reason and the Open Society.
Anyway, surely they both belong to ‘then,’ rather than ‘now,’ as both died in the last century, Stalin over 50 years ago, and Pol Pot was booted out 30 years ago.
So, we might as well chuck in Hitler, Mao and Toad’s old bete noire, Franco.

Haiti is now.

“the Middle Ages were a period of comparative prosperity in much of Europe”

Says Raven, in one of his, as always, measured and insightful posts (no, Toad is not being ironic). But, compared to what?

He then goes on to say;“…and the social strata were, in some respects, far more permeable than they are today.”
Toad has to doubt this – although the ‘in some respects’ qualification interests him. Do you have a manageable-length rejoinder, Raven? Potboy to Pontiff, say? Pauper to Prince? The only sort of ‘upward mobility'(!) Toad can conceive would be through the Church, or less likely, the Military. Neither prospect is alluring. (to Toad.)
Thomas Cromwell, in politics, maybe? Lost by a head, anyway.

Joyful, thank you very much for the link to that extremely interesting and well-balanced article on the errors of the Enlightenment on your blog.

Though I don’t agree with you when you say: “Henry VIII might have got his annulment – as others had in the same circumstances – if his queen’s nephew had not parked an army outside of Rome!”

True, the pressure of Carlos V’s army awaiting the Pope’s decision must have been very threatening, but it seems that Henry and Catherine’s marriage was certainly legal and voluntary on both sides, and was celebrated after the dominant Henry VII’s demise anyway. So how could an annulment be given to a valid marriage? Even though Catherine had been married to Henry’s elder brother Arthur for a short time before Arthur’s sudden death, this marriage was never consummated, and the necessary papal dispensation for Henry to marry his sister-in-law was sought and conceded. Henry and Catherine remained, by all accounts, happily married for 24 years. Henry truly loved Catherine until his obsession for a male heir, plus his infatuation with Anne Boleyn, made him seek ways of getting the marriage annulled.

Eamon Duffy and Michael Davies, both renowned Catholic authors, are among those of the opinion that there were no grounds for such.

I suspect the weasel word here is ‘valid.’ The marriages rich that Catholics manage to wriggle out of, usually at great cost, invariably turn out not to have been ‘valid.’ Waugh’s lost its ‘validity’ when his wife (also named Evelyn, as we all know!), ran off with another man.

Toad hopefully insists:
“What Voris does not do, naturally, is paint a picture of what the world, and life, would be like if the Reformation and the Enlightenment had never happened, and the Catholic Church and Kings and Popes and aristocrats ‘still despotically ruled the world.’ ”
_______________________

“Moreover the medieval Christian faith in reason and progress was constantly reinforced by actual progress, by technical and organizational innovations, many of them fostered by Christianity. For the past several centuries, far too many of us have been misled by the incredible fiction that, from the fall of Rome until about the 15th century, Europe was submerged in the Dark Ages — centuries of ignorance, superstition, and misery — from which it was suddenly, almost miraculously, rescued; first by the Renaissance and then by the Enlightenment. But, as even dictionaries and encyclopedias recently have begun to acknowledge, it was all a lie!”

“Encouraged by the scholastics and embodied in the great medieval universities founded by the church, faith in the power of reason infused Western culture, stimulating the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice. ”

“The common denominator in all these great historical developments was the Christian commitment to reason.”

The Church was the example at the fore-front of my mind (from recollection, Cardinal Wolsey was of humble origin) but I was also thinking of the other professions (for example, the law), which only really became “gentrified” in the seventeenth century, and trades. It is certainly true that there was limited upward traffic into the further reaches of the aristocracy (though mediaeval sources are full of descriptions of the downward mobility of aristos), but trades, the professions and mercantile life hadn’t taken on the social ossification that we see in the later seventeenth century.

Toad hopefully insists:
And Toad suspects that without the Reformation and the Enlightenment and indeed the Renaissance, (each one the Modernism of its day) that’s exactly where we peasants would all still be, still being bullied and murdered by Kings and popes. Whereas, now we are all free to bully and murder one another. Progress! Democracy!
_________________________-

But Professor Rodney Stark concludes that:

Encouraged by the scholastics and embodied in the great medieval universities founded by the church, faith in the power of reason infused Western culture, stimulating the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice.

*For the past several centuries, far too many of us have been misled by the incredible fiction that, from the fall of Rome until about the 15th century, Europe was submerged in the Dark Ages — centuries of ignorance, superstition, and misery — from which it was suddenly, almost miraculously, rescued; first by the Renaissance and then by the Enlightenment. But, as even dictionaries and encyclopedias recently have begun to acknowledge, it was all a lie!

*The common denominator in all these great historical developments was the Christian commitment to reason.

Kathleen, I’m not suggesting an annulment would have been justified – just that wealthy monarchs did not usually have much difficulty in getting annulments. For example, Eleanor of Aquitaine, after bearing two daughters to Louis of France, had her marriage annulled and married Henry II of England. Henry III and Joan the Queen of Castille had their marriage annulled, claiming that they were too closely related. (They were 3rd cousins.)

Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine was dependent on the annulment of her previous marriage, on the grounds that it had not been consummated. This even though she and her husband, Henry’s brother Arthur, had lived together for five months following their wedding, Arthur had been heard boasting that he had been ‘in the midst of Spain’ (those who heard him did not doubt he was suggesting sexual prowess), and no-one during those months doubted that they were sexually intimate. Catherine claimed that she was still a virgin when Arthur died, and continued to claim this for the rest of her life.

Henry became convinced – whether or not he was right; and undoubtedly it suited him to be convinced – that she had lied, that his marriage was a sham, and that this way why their male children had all died. He therefore claimed that the papal dispensation that allowed them to marry had been gained by false pretences.

Paradoxically, Pope Clement VII may have been more willing to grant the annulment if he had not been concerned about admitting that Julian II was in error in granting the first annulment. But it is a matter of historical fact that he was, at the time, the prisoner of Charles V, Catherine’s nephew.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, which only God knows, I don’t think the common Catholic view of Henry as a person who tossed away his faith for a bit of skirt is any more truthful than the Protestant view of Henry as a hero of the protestant reformation.

“The common denominator in all these great historical developments was the Christian commitment to reason.”

Says Golden C.
Toad would like to say this without being, or seeming to be too offensive. (or too predictable)
But, how can transubstantiation be reconciled with reason? Surely, the whole idea is that it can’t, and is entirely a matter of faith? Catholics believe it, not in spite of it being unreasonable, but because it is unreasonable.

I would suggest that for almost all Hunan beings it is not only possible but wholly necessary to be able both to entertain ideas based in reason and those based in hope: none of us would marry if we couldn’t!

That something can’t be arrived at by reason doesn’t make it irrational :) Otherwise God would be irrational (=unintelligible) in Himself, which is the opposite of the truth. The Trinity and the Real Presence are things we can’t know about through reason, because everything we know we come to know through the senses (even non-material things), and these are two things that are not accessible to the senses (except in the sense that we are told by the spoked or written word about them, of course). “Transubstantiation” is an explanation of how, to our senses (whether directly or by means of microscopes, chemical analysis, etc), the Blessed Sacrament appears to be one thing, whereas it is quite another.

Although I find Rebellion’s message somewhat resonant, as another commentator has pointed out, Michael Voris does look a bit like Robert Redford and does remind one, in the manner of his delivery, of a trained actor: Am I being unecessarily cautious or just a grumpy old man?

Commitment to Reason?

St. Bonaventura, in his ‘Itinerarium’, emphasises that knowledge in the last analysis comes down to seeing, to contemplation, to a kind of experience in which we know certain things to be true without further argument or demonstration. On the lowest level, this occurs in sensory observation, on the highest in the mystic vision.

Toad said:
Catholics believe it, not in spite of it being unreasonable, but because it is unreasonable.
______________

My dear Toad, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick again.

Catholics believe it principally because it has been revealed by their Divine Master and their understanding of it has been deepened by the working of the Holy Spirit.

What is that? Do we hear Toad now say “That’s gnats”?

I fear you confuse “reason” with what should possibly be called “logical materialism” (which I’m sure isn’t quite the same as dialectical materialism, though related, no doubt).

I’m confident many a ‘rational’ believing scholar has tried to reason out transubstantiation, most notably of course Thomas Aquinas, but also others such as Leibniz. I believe Elizabeth Anscombe and Bernard Lonergan also had awfully rational things to say on this present subject.

BTW, Toad, what about that blog commission on Lonergan? It hasn’t slipped the Toadious mind, has it?

In his latest Apostolic Exhortation, the present scholarly HF had this to say:

”Creation is born of the Logos and indelibly bears the mark of the creative Reason which orders and directs it; with joy-filled certainty the psalms sing: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6); and again, “he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth” (Ps 33:9).”

Golden Chersonnese and Toad are fated not to see eye-to-eye on this., sadly.
Someone has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, for sure.

The Pope here, puts it succinctly:

What really counts? What is authentic? What keeps us going? The key thing is to see what is simple. Why shouldn’t God be capable of letting a virgin give birth, too? Why shouldn’t Christ be able to rise from the dead?

Why shouldn’t piggy-wigs fly, indeed? Because it is not in the nature of things, in the experience of the majority of people on this planet. Well then, all that ‘proves’ is that those people are wrong, and unreasonable, says Golden.
Toad would be the last person to suggest that unreasonable things don’t happen every second. But he stubbornly refuses to approve of it.

“I’m confident many a ‘rational’ believing scholar has tried to reason out transubstantiation,” says Golden, which, to Toad, sounds a little hesitant and unconfident. (Toads are allowed to be unconfident, Catholics are not,)

Scholars may indeed have ‘tried,’ but Toad would be a bit surprised if any had managed to succeed, except to the satisfaction of those who already believe it, anyway.

But to Catholics there is no problem here. If “outsiders” question Catholic reasoning, The Golden Chresonnese of the world simply avoid the tackle by saying, “That’s because either you don’t know what reason is, or because reason means something so different to a Catholic we can never agree.
And so it goes.

Toad had quite forgot about Lonergan, being a amphibian not a pachyderm, (Toad, that is, not Lonergan) but will return to him after Unamuno, with whom he is currently wrestling. And getting a beating.

Toadious said:
The Golden Chresonnese of the world simply avoid the tackle by saying, “That’s because either you don’t know what reason is, or because reason means something so different to a Catholic we can never agree.
And so it goes.
_________________________

Oh Toad, how very cross-making you are.

You are trying to tell me that I am nothing but a slow computer with an arse (excuse my French). And I won’t have it!

Why shouldn’t there be black swans, said the child? Because it is not in the nature of things in the experience of the majority of the people on this planet, said their wise mentors. And then Europeans discovered Australia.

Exactly, Teresa. Golden Chersonnese, we do indeed have black swans, except I think they made it here themselves rather than being imported in a misguided attempt to grow a fur industry. And rabbits, and gorse, and Californian geese and South African couch grass – all of which respond to our temperate and predator-free environment by multiplying exponentially, and crowding out the natives. Come to think of it, I have Maori friends who would say the same about my ancestors and their compatriots.

joyful said:
. . . all of which respond to our temperate and predator-free environment by multiplying exponentially, and crowding out the natives. Come to think of it, I have Maori friends who would say the same about my ancestors and their compatriots.
______________________

Well, you merely few millions of pakehas have hardly done that, have you, my dear joyful (though the sheep and possums – possa?- have been more successful in that regard, have they not?).

I believe there are more people in Sydney alone, thanks in part to a certain restlessness amongst not a few Kiwis who swam the Tasman to join the Cane Toads.

A former prime minister of New Zealand once commented that Kiwis emigrating to Australia raise the average IQ of both countries. This, of course, is an outrageous comment, and I wouldn’t dream of repeating it. :-)

NZ has a population of 5 million (so it is said) – but there are only 4 million of us living in New Zealand at any one time. There are more NZers living in London than in some of our smaller cities.

joyful said:
A former prime minister of New Zealand once commented that Kiwis emigrating to Australia raise the average IQ of both countries. This, of course, is an outrageous comment, and I wouldn’t dream of repeating it.
________________

Actually, joyful, I was setting it up for you on that one. :-)

However, I feel that London could not possibly vie in numbers of New Zealanders with Bondi Junction in Sydney’s east; at least that was the case when I lived in Strye-ya some 20 years ago.

One often heard New Zealand strangled vowels when on the eastern suburbs rail line.